Glyphosate: Commission responds to European Citizens' Initiative and announces more transparency in scientific assessments
Strasbourg, 12 December 2017
Glyphosate: Commission responds to European Citizens' Initiative and announces more transparency in scientific assessments
With the Communication adopted today, the Commission replies to the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) "Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides" and commits to presenting a legislative proposal in 2018, to further increase the transparency and quality of studies used in the scientific assessment of substances.
In responding to the European Citizens' Initiative, the European Commission addresses the concerns of EU citizens and announces measures to make the process to authorise, restrict or ban the use of pesticides more transparent in the future.
Today's Communication sets out the way forward:
In addition, and following a thorough scientific assessment of all available data on glyphosate concluding that there is no link between glyphosate and cancer in humans, and a positive vote by Member States' representatives on 27 November 2017[1], the Commission today adopted a renewal of the approval of glyphosate for 5 years. While 15 years is the period that the Commission usually proposes for authorisations when all approval criteria are met, glyphosate is no routine case. This issue has been discussed several times by the Commission that has been working during the last months towards a decision which gathers the broadest possible support by Member States, while ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment in line with EU legislation. The Commission's final proposal for a 5 year renewal took also into account the latest non-binding Resolutions adopted by the European Parliament.
First Vice-President Frans Timmermans said: "It's great that well over a million EU citizens have invested their time to engage directly on an issue that matters. The Commission has listened and will now act. We need more transparency about how decisions are made in this area. Next spring the Commission will also deliver proposals on drinking water we promised in response to another successful Initiative. In sum, I am a strong supporter of the right of citizens to engage in this manner and am pressing the Parliament and Council to make speedy progress on our proposals to make it easier for European Citizens' Initiatives to be successful in the future."
Vytenis Andriukaitis, Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, said: "From the beginning of my mandate I have been a strong supporter of increased transparency in decision-making as well as in the terms of access to the scientific studies underlying the approval of active substances. I will put forward a proposal to address these issues by spring 2018. However it is equally important that Member States assume their responsibility when it comes to the authorisation of pesticides in their own markets. They must also ensure that pesticides are used sustainably and in full compliance with label requirements. Transparency, independence, and sustainable use of pesticides are our objectives. They should underpin our work and this is where my focus will be".
The Commission's reply to the three requests of the ECI:
1. “Ban glyphosate-based herbicides, exposure to which has been linked to cancer in humans, and has led to ecosystems degradation”:
Member States are responsible for the authorisation, use and/or ban of glyphosate-based products on their territories. In the EU, only substances for which there is objective evidence of safe use are approved. Following a thorough scientific assessment of all available data on glyphosate concluding that there is no link between glyphosate and cancer in humans, and a positive vote by Member States' representatives on 27 November 2017, the Commission today adopted a renewal of the approval of glyphosate for 5 years.President Juncker put this issue on the College agenda on several occasions, to ensure full political ownership by the Commission. Based on these political discussions, and taking account of the position of the European Parliament, the Commission decided to reduce the length of the proposed renewal from the standard 15 years to 5 years, which also ensured the widest possible support from Member States.
2. “Ensure that the scientific evaluation of pesticides for EU regulatory approval is based only on published studies, which are commissioned by competent public authorities instead of the pesticide industry”:
The Commission fully agrees that transparency in scientific assessments and decision-making is vital to ensuring trust in the food safety regulatory system. Maintaining and improving a strong, transparent and independent scientific assessment is crucial. The Commission will put forward a legislative proposal in 2018 covering these and other relevant aspects such as the governance of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),by spring 2018. The Commission will propose to change the current rules to make sure that scientific studies are publicly available. Citizens must be able to understand how such far-reaching decisions to authorise or ban certain substances are taken. Political responsibility and greater transparency are two sides of the same coin.
3. “Set EU-wide mandatory reduction targets for pesticide use, with a view to achieving a pesticide-free future”:
EU policy is already directed towards reducing dependency on pesticides and achieving a pesticide-free future as requested by the European Citizens' Initiative. The Commission will strive to ensure that Member States comply with their obligations under the Sustainable Use Directive and reduce dependency on pesticides. Member States have also been invited to establish more precise and measureable targets in their National Action Plans. In addition, in order to monitor trends in risk reduction from pesticide use at EU level, the Commission will establish harmonised risk indicatorson top of the existing national risk indicators. These would enable the Commission to determine the effectiveness of measures when assessing future policy options. The Commission will re-evaluate the situation on the basis of the resulting data and assess the need for EU-wide mandatory targets for pesticides.
Next steps:
- On the preparation of a legislative proposal: In January 2018, a report will be published on the Fitness Check of General Food Law which will take stock of the legislation in place. A public consultation will also be launched to feed into the preparation of the proposal to be presented by spring 2018.
- On a more sustainable use of pesticides, the Commission will follow-up with the Member States on the basis of a report published last October.
Background:
The procedure for the renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate generated a great deal of interest and a broader debate on the authorisation and use of pesticides in the EU. On 27 November 2017, Member States voted in favour of the Commission's proposal for a 5 year renewal of the approval.
On the request of President Juncker, the issue has been discussed several times by the College of Commissioners. The Commission has been working towards a decision which gathers the broadest possible support by Member States, while ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment in line with EU legislation. It followed a comprehensive and transparent scientific process, where more than 6.000 pages of scientific assessment were made public.
While 15 years is the period that the Commission usually proposes for authorisations when all approval criteria are met, glyphosate is no routine case. Other legitimate factors were taken into consideration when setting the appropriate period for renewal, such as the fact that additional information on the substance is being published at a high rate. Moreover, the Commission's final proposal for a 5 year renewal took into account the latest non-binding Resolutions adopted by the European Parliament. The decision formally adopted today, also carefully considered the European Citizens' Initiative "Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides".
Already at the beginning of his mandate, President Juncker announced that governing by abstention is not an option and proposed changing the so-called comitology rules in order to enhance transparency about the positions taken by Member States and ensure more political accountability in the decision making process for our citizens.
For more information:
All documents, including the related decisions adopted today by the Commission, will be available here.
The European Citizens' Initiative: “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides"
Follow us on Twitter: @Food_EU
[1]Appeal Committee on 27 November 2017, a positive opinion was reached with Member States, 18 of them (65.71% of the EU's population) voting in favour of the renewal, 9 (32.26%) against and 1 (2.02%) abstaining.
|
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
EU COMMITS TO A TRANSPARENT, PESTICIDE-FREE FUTURE
Friday, December 8, 2017
Thursday, December 7, 2017
CALL to NULLIFY "Unlawful" EU Glyphosate Renewal
Cross-party Pressure Builds For EU Decision on Glyphosate to be Annulled December 7, 2017
Former UN Special Rapporteur says the EU Commission's Implementing Regulation is unlawful
The Greens/EFA group will try to build a majority in the European Parliament to refer the EU’s decision to renew the licence for glyphosate to the European Court of Justice. The Greens and MEPs from the S&D political group are calling for the decision to be annulled.
The calls follow a new report from Professor Olivier De Schutter, a Belgian international human rights lawyer who now sits on the UN's Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and who formerly served as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food. In his report, Prof De Schutter outlined the reasons why the EU Commission's Implementing Regulation, which lays out the terms on which glyphosate's approval will be renewed, is unlawful and should be annulled.
His view is shared by the MEPs Eric Andrieu and Marc Tarabella from the S&D political group. They stated, "The re-authorization of this potentially carcinogenic substance for 500 million European citizens violates the existing European regulations on pesticides and several provisions of EU treaties."
The MEPs added that Prof De Schutter's report confirms that the EU vote to renew glyphosate for another five years "does not respect the precautionary principle".
The calls follow a new report from Professor Olivier De Schutter, a Belgian international human rights lawyer who now sits on the UN's Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and who formerly served as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food. In his report, Prof De Schutter outlined the reasons why the EU Commission's Implementing Regulation, which lays out the terms on which glyphosate's approval will be renewed, is unlawful and should be annulled.
His view is shared by the MEPs Eric Andrieu and Marc Tarabella from the S&D political group. They stated, "The re-authorization of this potentially carcinogenic substance for 500 million European citizens violates the existing European regulations on pesticides and several provisions of EU treaties."
The MEPs added that Prof De Schutter's report confirms that the EU vote to renew glyphosate for another five years "does not respect the precautionary principle".
Pesticides must not harm human health
In his report, Prof De Schutter stated that the renewal contravenes the EU pesticide regulation, which seeks to ensure that no pesticides shall be authorized unless they have no harmful effects on human health and no unacceptable effects on the environment. He wrote that by renewing the approval of an active substance with harmful effects that are amply demonstrated and acknowledged, the Commission broke the law.
Prof De Schutter added that the Commission's Implementing Regulation laying down conditions for glyphosate's renewal breaks the EU pesticide regulation's requirement that the approval and marketing of pesticides should enhance the functioning of the internal market.
He explained that the Implementing Regulation leaves it up to EU member states to protect groundwater, applicators, non-professional users, and non-target animals and plants from potential harm caused by glyphosate. Thus, wrote Prof De Schutter, "The Regulation opens the door to the adoption of a variety of national (or even subnational) regulatory regimes that would defeat its harmonisation purpose. Therefore, it appears that the Implementing Regulation breaches [the EU's pesticide regulation] insofar as it does not enhance the good functioning of the internal market."
Prof De Schutter added that the Commission's Implementing Regulation laying down conditions for glyphosate's renewal breaks the EU pesticide regulation's requirement that the approval and marketing of pesticides should enhance the functioning of the internal market.
He explained that the Implementing Regulation leaves it up to EU member states to protect groundwater, applicators, non-professional users, and non-target animals and plants from potential harm caused by glyphosate. Thus, wrote Prof De Schutter, "The Regulation opens the door to the adoption of a variety of national (or even subnational) regulatory regimes that would defeat its harmonisation purpose. Therefore, it appears that the Implementing Regulation breaches [the EU's pesticide regulation] insofar as it does not enhance the good functioning of the internal market."
Attempt to reverse a harmful decision
Philippe Lamberts, co-president of the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament, said: “We will now try build a majority in the European Parliament to take this to the European Court of Justice and will appeal to the Member States that rightly objected to the Commission’s proposals to join us. We must attempt to reverse what is set to be a deeply harmful decision. It will be clear to anyone that reads Prof De Schutter’s meticulous report that the Commission has been led by business interests. They disregarded not only the European Citizens’ Initiative and the view of the European Parliament, but also serious scientific warnings. Despite the large scale concern, they pressed ahead without even allowing a pause for further investigation. The German government in particular has questions to answer. It seems they are more interested in ensuring the proposed Bayer-Monsanto merger goes ahead than protecting the health of their own citizens."
Prof De Schutter commented: “The Commission has transformed into an institutional crisis what was, initially, a public health issue. It has dismissed the views of the International Agency of Research of Cancer (IARC) of the WHO, according to which glyphosate represents a ‘probable risk of provoking cancer in humans’. It did so despite the fact that the IARC’s findings are far more respected by the scientific community than those of the European agencies — the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — which have adopted their views based primarily, it now appears, on the documents provided by Monsanto. This is unacceptable. The Court of Justice shall have no choice but to annul the Implementing Regulation, for violation of the requirement to ensure a high level of protection of human health and of the environment, and for violation of the right of citizens to file a ECI — and to contribute thereby to the democratic life of the Union.”
Prof De Schutter commented: “The Commission has transformed into an institutional crisis what was, initially, a public health issue. It has dismissed the views of the International Agency of Research of Cancer (IARC) of the WHO, according to which glyphosate represents a ‘probable risk of provoking cancer in humans’. It did so despite the fact that the IARC’s findings are far more respected by the scientific community than those of the European agencies — the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — which have adopted their views based primarily, it now appears, on the documents provided by Monsanto. This is unacceptable. The Court of Justice shall have no choice but to annul the Implementing Regulation, for violation of the requirement to ensure a high level of protection of human health and of the environment, and for violation of the right of citizens to file a ECI — and to contribute thereby to the democratic life of the Union.”
Background
The European Commission is due to adopt the Implementing Regulation on 12 December. There is then a two-month period in which any Member State or the European Parliament can file an action for annulment of the implementing regulation.
For Prof De Schutter's full report, see: http://extranet.greens-efa-service.eu/public/media/file/1/5422
Sources:
The Greens/EFA in the EU Parliament
https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/press/greens-efa-group-calls-for-commission-decision-to-be-annulled/
Eric Andrieu, S&D MEP: http://www.eric-andrieu.eu/glyphosate-on-annule-tout/
For Prof De Schutter's full report, see: http://extranet.greens-efa-service.eu/public/media/file/1/5422
Sources:
The Greens/EFA in the EU Parliament
https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/press/greens-efa-group-calls-for-commission-decision-to-be-annulled/
Eric Andrieu, S&D MEP: http://www.eric-andrieu.eu/glyphosate-on-annule-tout/
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
EUROPE STRIVES TO BAN GLYPHOSATE AFTER RENEWAL
A controversial weedkiller has won a new five-year lease in Europe, but citizens are fighting back
Academic rigor, journalistic flair
The controversial pesticide Glyphosate – which is the key ingredient in one of the world’s bestselling weedkillers – has recently had its license renewed by the EU for another five years. This means it will continue to be used by both farmers and homeowners, and will be available for sale across Europe. This is despite ongoing debates about how safe the pesticide actually is.
The decision came just weeks before the current license was due to expire in December and broke a months long impasse between member states who had previously rejected renewals for 15 and ten years.
Despite Brexit, the UK is still affected by the EU’s decision, because it is part of the EU’s agriculture, environment and food safety regimes until March 2019. After that date, a separate process, and a longer license for glyphosate, may beckon.
Why the controversy?
Glyphosate is so controversial because it has previously been linked to cancer. In 2015, The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer stated that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans”. But since then, two EU agencies – the European Food Safety Agency and the European Chemicals Agency – have concluded that it is safe.
In the run up to the re-licensing decision, around four million European citizens signed various petitions calling for a ban on the pesticide. Behind the scenes, the organisation WeMove.EU – which describes itself as a citizens’ movement campaigning for a better Europe – has been coordinating much of the effort.
How have they campaigned so far?
Cmpaigners have used a range of strategies – days of action, petitions, protests – but most prominently, earlier this year WeMove.EU launched a European Citizens’ Initiative, which has given the campaign a way into the formal EU decision making process.
The European Citizens’ Initiative is the EU’s flagship (but still not widely known) effort to establish participatory democracy in the EU. It was introduced by the Lisbon treaty and has since become a major instrument in addressing democratic change.
A citizens’ initiative has to be backed by at least one million EU citizens, coming from at least seven out of the 28 member states. These citizens can then call upon the Commission to make a legislative proposal on an issue where it is perceived that EU action is required
Has this ever happened before?
Since the initiative was launched in April 2012, only four campaigns (including Ban Glyphosate) have succeeded in gaining one million signatures out of 47 that have been proposed. A further 21 have been rejected outright on the grounds that they fell outside the treaties. Over zealousness by the Commission in implementing the European Citizens’ Initiative, excessive requirements on organisers, and a lack of follow-up have been blamed for the low legislative impact.
So it’s not hard to see why by 2016 – just four years after coming into operation – the initiative was almost on the point of collapse. But reforms to the regulation which governs the initiative have been proposed, and the Glyphosate campaign – as well as Brexit which has prompted four additional campaigns – has breathed new life into it.
So has the campaign made a difference?
Ban Glyphosate is the fastest growing campaign in the history of the European Citizens’ Initiative. And by the beginning of July 2017, the campaign had met both the thresholds in terms of signature count and countries involved.
WeMove managed this through a combination of their network of partner organisations – including Greenpeace, Corporate Europe Observatory, Campact and over 90 other organisations. They also used a sophisticated online signature collection system, and an active social media strategy formed around the slogan: “We could get toxic Glyphosate banned, but only if we act together”.
In the UK, the campaign also received an early boost when the link was retweeted by the celebrity naturalist Chris Packham. Support from citizens in the UK was considerable and with over 94,000 signatures, it is the only one of the four successful European Citizens’ Initiatives to meet the threshold in the UK.
What’s next?
Despite the re-licensing of glyphosate, the organisers say that banning a single pesticide was only one part of the campaign. It is claimed that highlighting the strength and depth of citizen opposition to widespread pesticide use and to the existing approval system were the ultimate goals. And efforts will no doubt continue in the EU up to Brexit, and well beyond.
That said, the UK was one of the 18 member states that voted to renew the license. And ultimately, in light of this decision, the main aim of the campaign – an outright ban on the sale and use of glyphosate – looks to have so far been unsuccessful.
But despite this, the pesticide remains a source of controversy. Germany’s support for its re-licensing turned out to be the the result of a decision made by the agriculture minister, Christian Schmidt, against the views of other ministers and without consulting Angela Merkel. While in France, Emmanuel Macron vowed to press ahead with a phasing out of the chemical within three years regardless of the re-licensing. And given that the Commission is obliged to give a response to the European Citizens’ Initiative by early next year, it may still be a case of watch this space.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Now It's Criminal - Question of Homicide? EU Faces New Charges
Criminal complaint filed against EU authorities after glyphosate approval
Published: 05 December 2017
Approval was gained via covert industry influence and copy-pasting of manufacturers’ documents instead of independent evaluation, NGOs say
An alliance of environmental NGOs on Monday launched criminal proceedings in Austria, Germany, Italy, and France against the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment, BfR, over the EU approval of glyphosate.
Citing their own investigations, US court documents (the so-called "Monsanto Papers"), and a report on plagiarism, the NGOs state that BfR and EFSA have not conducted an independent, objective and transparent assessment of the health risks of glyphosate, as required by the EU Pesticide Regulation 1107/2009. As a result, glyphosate has once again been approved in Europe, when it would otherwise have failed to meet the legal requirements for authorization. The NGOs are concerned that serious damage to health will occur as a result of what they term official misconduct.
Citing their own investigations, US court documents (the so-called "Monsanto Papers"), and a report on plagiarism, the NGOs state that BfR and EFSA have not conducted an independent, objective and transparent assessment of the health risks of glyphosate, as required by the EU Pesticide Regulation 1107/2009. As a result, glyphosate has once again been approved in Europe, when it would otherwise have failed to meet the legal requirements for authorization. The NGOs are concerned that serious damage to health will occur as a result of what they term official misconduct.
Allegation of plagiarism with deliberate concealment of the author
Substances with carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic properties are not allowed to be authorized for use as pesticides, according to the EU Pesticide Regulation. The NGOs say that BfR did not even evaluate those published studies that deal with these potential effects of glyphosate, but instead uncritically adopted the assessments from the manufacturers’ application for authorization. In the process they deliberately obscured the industry origin of the assessments, as the report of the plagiarism expert, Dr Stefan Weber, notes.
As an example, Dr Helmut Burtscher-Schaden of GLOBAL 2000, who commissioned the plagiarism report from Dr Weber for the Austrian environmental organization GLOBAL 2000, showed a graphic that reveals that 94% of BfR’s chapter on genotoxicity came from the industry dossier written by the former Monsanto employee (and later consultant to the company) Larry Kier. But among the small percentage omitted is the information that would enable someone to identify that the Monsanto man was the source!
Dr Weber said of BfR’s report, “All in all, the writers of the report must be accused of significant scientific misconduct and of fulfilling all the definitional criteria of text plagiarism in the sense of conscious deception about the true authorship.”
The authorities reject these accusations. EFSA director Bernhard Url even said they were part of "an orchestrated campaign to discredit the scientific process behind the EU assessment of glyphosate”, while EFSA’s Jose Tarazona told the EU Parliament that the accusations of plagiarism and copy-paste come from “people that do not understand the process”. He showed examples of passages that had been copy-pasted from industry but then contradicted by the authorities, with their own comments written in italics.
But Dr Burtscher-Schaden said that Tarazona took these passages from part of the assessment report that did not deal with independent studies and which are not subject to allegations of plagiarism. He therefore believes that Tarazona misled the Parliament.
Given this disagreement between the authorities and the NGOs, Dr Burtscher-Schaden said he wanted to obtain “an independent and objective test” of the NGOs’ case from a court of law.
Lawyer Dr Josef Unterweger commented: "If plagiarism serves to produce false evidence, then that is not just a matter of copyright. If a [pesticide] authorization authority produces an incorrect report, then it is liable for it. This is called official liability or state liability. If a pesticide is in circulation, which may have been out of circulation for years without a false report from the authority, then the authority that produced the false report is liable for any damage that has since occurred."
If such damage included causing serious illnesses like cancer, then it might even be a question of homicide, Dr Unterweger added.
As an example, Dr Helmut Burtscher-Schaden of GLOBAL 2000, who commissioned the plagiarism report from Dr Weber for the Austrian environmental organization GLOBAL 2000, showed a graphic that reveals that 94% of BfR’s chapter on genotoxicity came from the industry dossier written by the former Monsanto employee (and later consultant to the company) Larry Kier. But among the small percentage omitted is the information that would enable someone to identify that the Monsanto man was the source!
Dr Weber said of BfR’s report, “All in all, the writers of the report must be accused of significant scientific misconduct and of fulfilling all the definitional criteria of text plagiarism in the sense of conscious deception about the true authorship.”
The authorities reject these accusations. EFSA director Bernhard Url even said they were part of "an orchestrated campaign to discredit the scientific process behind the EU assessment of glyphosate”, while EFSA’s Jose Tarazona told the EU Parliament that the accusations of plagiarism and copy-paste come from “people that do not understand the process”. He showed examples of passages that had been copy-pasted from industry but then contradicted by the authorities, with their own comments written in italics.
But Dr Burtscher-Schaden said that Tarazona took these passages from part of the assessment report that did not deal with independent studies and which are not subject to allegations of plagiarism. He therefore believes that Tarazona misled the Parliament.
Given this disagreement between the authorities and the NGOs, Dr Burtscher-Schaden said he wanted to obtain “an independent and objective test” of the NGOs’ case from a court of law.
Lawyer Dr Josef Unterweger commented: "If plagiarism serves to produce false evidence, then that is not just a matter of copyright. If a [pesticide] authorization authority produces an incorrect report, then it is liable for it. This is called official liability or state liability. If a pesticide is in circulation, which may have been out of circulation for years without a false report from the authority, then the authority that produced the false report is liable for any damage that has since occurred."
If such damage included causing serious illnesses like cancer, then it might even be a question of homicide, Dr Unterweger added.
No unbiased examination of scientific facts
GLOBAL 2000 cited recently published US court records, also known as the "Monsanto papers”, as evidence that EFSA and BfR never intended to carry out a proper assessment of the link between glyphosate and cancer. The NGO refers to an email released as part of the Monsanto Papers, in which an EPA employee states that EFSA was minded to reject IARC’s “probable carcinogen” verdict on glyphosate. This email was sent before IARC’s monograph had even been published or EFSA had begun its review of the evidence that IARC drew upon. GLOBAL 2000 believes that this shows that an independent and objective evaluation was ruled out from the start.
Suspicion of (indirect) influence by Monsanto
According to court records released in the US, the contact person for EFSA at the US EPA was Jess Rowland, the same senior EPA toxicologist who was dubbed Monsanto's "mole" at the EPA. He is suspected of having conspired with Monsanto and is alleged to have successfully prevented an independent cancer assessment of glyphosate by another US agency. It also appears that he influenced EFSA to give glyphosate a clean bill of health in a teleconference with EU member states, GLOBAL 2000 stated.
PAN Germany's toxicologist and board member, Dr Peter Clausing, revealed in May 2017 that at this teleconference, a remark by Jess Rowland led EFSA to exclude a pivotal cancer study from its assessment. GLOBAL 2000 said, “A satisfactory scientific justification could not be provided by EFSA.”
For all the above reasons, the environmental organizations GLOBAL 2000, PAN Europe, PAN Germany, PAN Italia and Generations Futures are filing criminal charges against BfR and EFSA. The NGOs are also concerned that if the regulatory authorities failed to conduct themselves properly in the case of glyphosate, they may have done the same with many other pesticides.
GLOBAL 2000 commented: “The shortcomings in the approval process of glyphosate have shaken the confidence of Europeans in the authorities and the authorization process. Comprehensive reform and education is required. This can be done by judicial investigations, but also by parliamentary investigations. Only when this happens and the necessary consequences are drawn can the confidence of Europeans in their institutions be restored in the long term.”
GLOBAL 2000 said the case could not be taken straight to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and that the groups instead aimed to escalate it to the ECJ via a domestic court. But the ECJ told Reuters it was not possible to take pan-European EFSA to a national court. However, as BfR is a domestic agency within Germany, it seems that it would not be protected in this way. As for the case against EFSA, Dr Burtscher-Schaden told GMWatch that the NGOs were considering various ways forward.
Helmut Burtscher-Schaden’s book, The Glyphosate Files: Smoke and mirrors in the pesticide approvals process, is available here:
https://www.amazon.com/Glyphosate-Files-Mirrors-Pesticide-Approvals-ebook/dp/B076VRF8PP
Video released by GLOBAL 2000 to accompany the press conference announcing the court actions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl_IStchz7c&feature=youtu.be
Article in German by GLOBAL 2000: https://www.global2000.at/en/node/5345
PAN Germany's toxicologist and board member, Dr Peter Clausing, revealed in May 2017 that at this teleconference, a remark by Jess Rowland led EFSA to exclude a pivotal cancer study from its assessment. GLOBAL 2000 said, “A satisfactory scientific justification could not be provided by EFSA.”
For all the above reasons, the environmental organizations GLOBAL 2000, PAN Europe, PAN Germany, PAN Italia and Generations Futures are filing criminal charges against BfR and EFSA. The NGOs are also concerned that if the regulatory authorities failed to conduct themselves properly in the case of glyphosate, they may have done the same with many other pesticides.
GLOBAL 2000 commented: “The shortcomings in the approval process of glyphosate have shaken the confidence of Europeans in the authorities and the authorization process. Comprehensive reform and education is required. This can be done by judicial investigations, but also by parliamentary investigations. Only when this happens and the necessary consequences are drawn can the confidence of Europeans in their institutions be restored in the long term.”
GLOBAL 2000 said the case could not be taken straight to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and that the groups instead aimed to escalate it to the ECJ via a domestic court. But the ECJ told Reuters it was not possible to take pan-European EFSA to a national court. However, as BfR is a domestic agency within Germany, it seems that it would not be protected in this way. As for the case against EFSA, Dr Burtscher-Schaden told GMWatch that the NGOs were considering various ways forward.
Helmut Burtscher-Schaden’s book, The Glyphosate Files: Smoke and mirrors in the pesticide approvals process, is available here:
https://www.amazon.com/Glyphosate-Files-Mirrors-Pesticide-Approvals-ebook/dp/B076VRF8PP
Video released by GLOBAL 2000 to accompany the press conference announcing the court actions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl_IStchz7c&feature=youtu.be
Article in German by GLOBAL 2000: https://www.global2000.at/en/node/5345
Monday, November 27, 2017
GERMAN AG MINISTRY SELLS OUT ENVIRONMENTAL MINISTRY ON GLYPHOSATE
Scandal erupts around German glyphosate vote
Published: 27 November 2017
Minister of agriculture goes rogue, votes for glyphosate renewal in spite of environment minister's opposition
Today a qualified majority of EU member states voted for the Commission proposal to renew the authorization of glyphosate for five years. Germany voted in favour, despite having previously abstained from voting on the topic due to a difference of opinion between the environment ministry (which opposes renewal) and the agriculture ministry (which supports it).
Now a number of news reports circulating in Germany indicate that the German YES to glyphosate was sent to Brussels by the minister for agriculture Christian Schmidt (CSU, Bavarian Regionalist Conservatives), without the consent of and even against a explicit written veto by his colleague, the minister of environment Barbara Hendricks (SPD, Social Democrats).
This is a serious and unexpected break of procedure and trust within the government.
The division in the German government over glyphosate has been confirmed by Hendricks in the following words (confirmed by her spokesperson in writing):
"Exactly two hours before the start of the Appeals Committee meeting, today at 12:30, I clearly stated to my colleague Mr Schmidt over the phone that I still disagree with renewing the approval of glyphosate, even under certain conditions. It was therefore also clear that Germany had to abstain at the appeal committee meeting. At 13:07, Mr Schmidt confirmed to me by SMS that the disagreement remains.
"Apparently at the same time a different directive was issued to the representative of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture in Brussels than was agreed between us. Anyone interested in building trust between interlocutors cannot behave in that way."[1]
Now a number of news reports circulating in Germany indicate that the German YES to glyphosate was sent to Brussels by the minister for agriculture Christian Schmidt (CSU, Bavarian Regionalist Conservatives), without the consent of and even against a explicit written veto by his colleague, the minister of environment Barbara Hendricks (SPD, Social Democrats).
This is a serious and unexpected break of procedure and trust within the government.
The division in the German government over glyphosate has been confirmed by Hendricks in the following words (confirmed by her spokesperson in writing):
"Exactly two hours before the start of the Appeals Committee meeting, today at 12:30, I clearly stated to my colleague Mr Schmidt over the phone that I still disagree with renewing the approval of glyphosate, even under certain conditions. It was therefore also clear that Germany had to abstain at the appeal committee meeting. At 13:07, Mr Schmidt confirmed to me by SMS that the disagreement remains.
"Apparently at the same time a different directive was issued to the representative of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture in Brussels than was agreed between us. Anyone interested in building trust between interlocutors cannot behave in that way."[1]
Monday, November 13, 2017
USA - ALL 50 STATES DEMAND GOVERNORS TO BAN GLYPHOSATE
Press release
For Immediate Release
Monday, November 13, 2017
Contact: info@momsacrossamerica.org
Mission Viejo, CA - Moms Across America announces a nationwide campaign to ban glyphosate herbicides in all fifty of the United States. Support from The California Guild, Organic Consumers Association, Institute for Responsible Technology and Thinking Moms Revolution, with millions of supporters collectively, urge state governors to protect their residents and children.
“European Member states, after considering volumes of scientific studies and numerous testimonies by lawyers and researchers, have refused to renew the license for glyphosate. If it is not safe for Europeans, and Malta, Sri Lanka, The Netherlands, and Argentina who have banned glyphosate, then we do not want glyphosate in our United States. We urge our governors to take bold steps like the Governor of Arkansas and Missouri did in banning Dicamba, and ban glyphosate herbicides and toxic chemicals immediately.”- Zen Honeycutt, Executive Director of Moms Across America
Glyphosate herbicides or Monsanto'sRoundUp weed killer, the most widely used herbicide in history, has been proven to cause serious harm to life. Glyphosate has contaminated our planet and is now found in our children's urine, mother's milk, our bloodstreams, and our food, beverages, and water.
In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization found that glyphosate “is a probable human carcinogen.”
In July of 2017 the California State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added glyphosate to its Prop 65 list of known carcinogens.
In October of 2017, after 1 million Europeans requested a ban, 72% of the Members of the European Parliament voted to BAN glyphosate and EU Member states have refused to renew the license.
Malta, Sri Lanka, The Netherlands, and Argentina have banned glyphosate. Many school districts and cities in the United States have already discontinued the use of glyphosate.
Glyphosate ban requests are already being considered by Governor Brown of California from the California Guild. Pesticides including glyphosate have already been banned in Connecticut for use on school and daycare grounds. The Governors of Arkansas and Missouri have already banned Dicamba, proving that statewide action can be taken to protect citizens.
Glyphosate herbicides have also been found to be linked to various cancers specifically lymphoma, are endocrine disruptors, neurotoxic, and a cause of liver disease. Global studies show that we are routinely exposed to dangerous levels of glyphosate. Millions of citizens in all fifty states come in contact with glyphosate daily. The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that our children are the most vulnerable to pesticides, we need to take action to protect the future of our state.
Over 1000 Americans are currently suing Monsanto, the manufacturer of glyphosate herbicides, for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. The Justice Department is investigating Monsanto for corruption, coverups, and collusion with the EPA in relation to the carcinogenic effects of glyphosate.
All 50 state governors are being petitioned by moms and supporters through Change.org and local state residents from each state are launching a mail-in campaign today requesting meetings with their governors. The campaign came together in just 5 days after The Doctors aired an episode of the Monsanto lawsuit and the EU members refused to renew glyphosate.
Honeycutt adds, “Now is the time. Our country is in an unaffordable and tragic public health crisis. Toxic chemicals have been shown to contribute to or cause many of these health issues, especially for our children. It’s time for our states to take actions that our EPA is not willing to take. They can, must and we believe, will protect our citizens from irreparable harm. It’s just a matter of which state will be the first to ban glyphosate?”
Moms Across America is a 501c3 non profit organization whose motto is "Empowered Moms, Healthy Kids."
--
Zen Honeycutt
Executive Director, Moms Across America
Mission Viejo, CA. 92691
M. 949-307-6695
Empowered Moms, Healthy Kids
------------------------------
PESTICIDE SPRAY -CALIFORNIA LEADS WITH BAN NEAR SCHOOLS JAN 1, 2018
California bans use of some farming pesticides near schools
California has banned farmers from using certain pesticides near schools and day care centers under a new rule announced Tuesday that regulators said is among the toughest in the U.S.
Under the new rule, California farmers will be prohibited from spraying pesticides within a quarter mile (0.4 kilometers) of public K-12 schools and licensed daycare centers from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. during the school week, the state Department of Pesticide Regulation said in a statement.
The new regulations take effect Jan. 1 and apply to crop dusters flying over fields, air blasters spraying orchards and fumigants along with most dust and powder pesticides that could be blown onto school grounds by the wind.
"These rules will help to further protect the health of children, teachers and school staff from unintended pesticide exposure," Brian Leahy, the department's director said in the statement.
Some California counties already require buffer zones between schools and areas where pesticides are sprayed on crops.
But the new rule is the first statewide standard of its kind, the department said. It is meant to safeguard about 4,100 schools and day cares and will affect about 2,500 California farms growing everything from almonds, strawberries and grapes to produce wine, officials said. Violators will face fines up to $5,000.
Farmers will also be required to annually tell schools and county agriculture offices about the pesticides they expect to use near school buildings. School officials will have the option of deciding whether to share that information with parents.
Farmers who criticize the new rule have said they are being unfairly targeted because schools often build campuses on cheaper land outside of town centers where the farmers tilled the soil long before students arrived.
"Nobody is going to argue, we need to do whatever we can to protect our children," said Bruce Blodgett, executive director of the San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation. "But we need to take a step back here. It's not that the farms went to the schools, the schools were built in the farm areas. We need better guidelines about where we're building schools."
Farmers are mindful of neighboring schools and don't spray crops with pesticides when it could harm children, he said.
But officials said more than 50 people have been sickened since 2005 by pesticides that drifted onto school campuses, illustrating the need for the stricter regulations.
In the most recent incident, about two dozen students and staff at Coachella Valley High School in Riverside County reported feeling ill in October 2015 after a grower used a pesticide near the school and the wind changed direction, said Charlotte Fadipe, a pesticide department spokeswoman.
Under the rule, farmers will be limited to spraying near schools at night and on weekends, when students are usually not on campus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)